Making a scanner with a DSLR

[rdenney]

And if you don't have a Coolscan 8000 or 9000, be prepared to shell out $4000-5000.

To me, that's borderline insane. You can get four drum scanners for that money.

I agree it's insane. But drum scanners are not a replacement for those whose requirements include fitting in a middle-class home, not maintaining an Apple computer museum, or not wanting to fluid-mount negatives.

For those who already have an 8000/9000, however, a scheme for scanning a 4x5 would be slick. But it won't be easy. The scanner stripe runs right down the middle, and I don't know how one scans the entire 4x5 area even with offset mounting of the negative. I'll have to hold a 4x5 negative up to my Nikon holder and see what is really possible.

Rick "who finds stitching slightly rotated tiles challenging, so alignment will be critical" Denney

[marfa boomboom tx]

the size of the modified FH allows a scan of 2.35" and the entire length of the film (5"). The left bar, with a slit, permits the film to ride without hitting anything inside the CScan. There is considerable overlap of scans.

About costs, hmmm... I bought CS back when they weren't hot, nor the only game. So my cost has been $54 for the one "destroyed" holder. It will have to be further refined to manage focus plane etc, but I wanted to know IF. And for $54 and a half hour, I have learned that IF.


later, maybe more.

[marfa boomboom tx]

the size of the modified FH allows a scan of 2.35" and the entire length of the film (5"). The left bar, with a slit, permits the film to ride without hitting anything inside the CScan. There is considerable overlap of scans.

About costs, hmmm... I bought CS back when they weren't hot, nor the only game. So my cost has been $54 for the one "destroyed" holder. It will have to be further refined to manage focus plane etc, but I wanted to know IF. And for $54 and a half hour, I have learned that IF.


later, maybe more.

AND another HOUR and I've learned IT WON'T WORK... DO NOT TRY. save your holder.

The CS left side would have to be loosened and readjusted for the film to travel so the lens could cover and focus the film correctly.

>>>>>>>>>>>> No longer a small mod. <<<<<<<<<<<<<<


The bad thing is I held everyone up for an early start to the Rodeo...

[buggz]

Another link I have found concerning the issues of this method.
<<http://theonlinephotographer.typepad.com/the_online_photographer/2012/01/scan-film-with-camera-1.html>>
<<http://theonlinephotographer.typepad.com/the_online_photographer/2012/01/how-to-scan-film-2.html>>

[Peter De Smidt]

Well, none of that is really surprising.

[Ben Syverson]

This thread would be much improved if people would contribute helpful information rather than theoretical problems or hypothetical stumbling blocks.

Peter has an extremely impressive first start, and it's only going to get better. Already he's shown that he can outclass a Cezanne.

[rdenney]

This thread would be much improved if people would contribute helpful information rather than theoretical problems or hypothetical stumbling blocks.

Peter has an extremely impressive first start, and it's only going to get better. Already he's shown that he can outclass a Cezanne.

There's nothing wrong with theoretical problems and hypothetical stumbling blocks, if they are presented as problems to be considered and overcome. That's not the same thing as saying it won't work, or (worse) saying that it's not worth doing. Those "contributions" are the ones I could do without.

Also, I know the thread is long. But if one is unwilling to read it (and to see that a comment they are offering has already been offered--a couple of times), then it might be best to let it go. And then there's the issue that the discussion has moved on to various sub-threads to discuss each element of the system, despite my misgiving that it has fractured the discussion so that people can no longer find it all in one spot.

I have a status report for my own prototype. My camera mount is now complete. I have secured a long Arca plate that I can use to lock the two standards of my bellows together, plus I have secured a (different) Arca plate that will clamp to the L-plate on my DSLR and be clamped in the Arca clamp on my fine focuser. The fine focuser is a Velmex slide with 1-1/2" of travel, so I need a gross adjustment. I have secured that also: I will use two Incra "t-tracks" intended for precision woodworking, and four clamp bolts. I will secure those tracks to my bed, one on each edge of the base plate on which the fine focuser is mounted, and use two thumbscrew clamps to hold the base plate to the two tracks at the desired position. The clamps have a bit of play when loose, so I'll include an alignment guide for the edge of the plate to ensure alignment when tightened. This adjustability will make it easier to place with lenses of much different focal length--my target range is 50-135mm lenses used at 1:1.

As previously reported, my negatives stage is assembled and ready to be mounted.

Finally, I have secured the mounting surface. I'm using a Phenolic-coated 3/4" plywood tool base. These are intended as precision work surfaces for fine wood-working. The plywood is something like 10 plies of very thin birch veneer, with a polished phenolic resin finish on each side. The surface is quite hard, but can still be drilled for mounting screws. If the plywood panel is held flat, the surface will be flat. To hold the panel flat, I will mount the plywood to the top of a polished granite sink cutout, using appropriately placed anchor bolts tightened to prevent vertical movement but not to prevent horizontal expansion of the wood. That will prevent the two materials from attempting to warp each other in case of unequal expansion and contraction. The diamond bits I need for the anchor bolts on the granite have been secured. (I bought them to drill holes in ceramic tile for a bathroom refresh that, em, altered my priorities for the last couple of weekends, but in the end didn't need them for that project. I had to have them, though--that's my story and I'm sticking to it.)

I'm down to a couple of hours of directed effort and I can begin my own testing. I'll post new pictures when I'm done with assembly.

On the stitching front--as I have reported in the stitching thread, I have thrown the stitching automation problem over to some students of a friend of mine who specializes in this sort of thing. They might come up with a reasonably well-automated approach to stitching using ImageJ.

Is any of this practical? Probably not while good scanners are still available. But I predict a time when all of us will be building, or paying someone to build, something similar that uses a digital imager that is available, rather than by creating a digital imager implementation that cannot be supported by the broader market. It's certainly not cheap. At OEM prices, what I've constructed would cost about $1000 in materials, plus labor and overhead, plus design, plus some sort of enclosure, plus the light source, plus the DSLR. If what we end up with turns out as good as current high-end scanners, it won't be because they are cheaper, especially for those unwilling to use the materials and hand and build it themselves. At retail using new stuff (and including the DSLR and lenses), what I've constructed would probably have to be sold for $10,000 or more. And with the granite base it will weigh about 100 pounds--it won't be any lighter than those drum scanners that require people to add onto their house and hire a crew of native bearers.

Rick "whose design will double as a high-end photo-macrography station" Denney

[Peter De Smidt]

Rick, I'm glad to hear about your progress. It'll be exciting to see the system when it's put together.

I'm planning on using my system for regular macro photography as well.

Regarding affordability and feasibility, I agree that our rigs would be fairly expensive to make. That said, I built my prototype to be big enough to investigate a bunch of different things, including use with 5x7 negatives, lots of lens experimentation... If someone knew exactly what they want to do, say use a particular lens to scan particular size negatives, there could be a lot of simplification.

Regarding splitting up the discussion, I did so in the hope that people with knowledge on various things, e.g. software, robotics..., might chip in if they didn't have to wade through 50 pages of forum posts before commenting. As usual, though, there's pluses and minuses to each option.

[Laron]

/ I would just quickly thank you guys very much for sharing your experiences, Im also super interested in what you are doing and definetely subscribed to this thread!
the comparison image speaks for itself! would be great to see your rigs as well. cant wait to build mine once...

[Donald Miller]

I have followed this thread with interest. There is a lot of good information contained here. I have a question that I don't have the answer to. For that reason I am posing it here. I have a Canon 65mm dedicated macro lens. This is the lens that can not be used for normal pictorial use (macro only) and will render at 1X up to 5X magnification. How would this degree of magnification compare to a drum scan? A good educated guess of the comparison will determine if I go forward to design a system to use that lens in a scan capacity with either my 5D MkII or 1DS Mk III. I have a Novoflex Cross Q focusing rail for two axis (X and Z) that I would like to incorporate. My other problem, should I decide to go forward with this, would be the third (y)axis. Thanks for sharing your thoughts on this.

I will also post this in the lens section related to this topic...moderators please choose the proper classification.